“Hammer of Truth” response outline to the question: “Do you Believe in god?” 

With my “Hammer of Truth” Ontology (What), Epistemology (How) and Axiology (why) questions debate/challenge philosophy tools so people easily learn how to use Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions to remove errors and add accuracy.

-I want to teach people that when they are asked, “Do you Believe in god?”  to ask What Do you Mean by god (an ontological question wanting a good ontology answer) then when they try and give an answer to explain or define the god term’s “thingness/attributes/qualities” which will likely fail, so we will have to explain that want is offered does not soundly explain or define a good Ontology answer of the term/idea of god, instead what is being offered is not a “good ontology answer” thus the god term being offered like all gods is not real or tangible,  ie “they need to be proved by the materialistic empirical detection or logical necessity, I mean it needs tangible warranted evidence that is provable as real and not some empty made up definition that is not real.

-Then if they stand behind what they think is some valid evidence to explain or define the god term’s “thingness/attributes/qualities” we should ask “How Do You Know That” (an Epistemological question needing an Epistemology answer), Then when they try and give an answer to explain “how they know” which will likely fail, so we will have to explain that want is offered does not soundly establish and confirm knowledge, instead what is being offered is not a “good Epistemology answer”, thus the god term being offered like all god claims is speaking in unjustified or unsupported terms, rather the ideas offered is refer to nonreal or intangible-unknowable things.

-Then if they stand behind what they think is some good epistemology answer, we should ask “Why Do You think what you have offered is valuable/worthwhile/good evidence, especially if there is posable contradictory evidence or good reason/valid and reliable reasoning process” (an Axiological question needing a “good Axiology answer”). Then when they try and give an answer to explain why they think what is being offered is not a “good Axiology answer” thus is not real or tangible and not some empty made up definition that is not real offered is valuable/worthwhile/good evidence, especially if there is posable contradictory evidence or good reason/valid and reliable reasoning process, because without good Ontology and Epistemology answers that are valid as well as reliable reason and evidence to support the offered god term thinking, which they will not making the offered god claims invalid, disvalued, dis-worth, as well as un-good thus the god term being offered like all gods is not real or tangible,  ie “they need to be proved by the materialistic empirical detection or logical necessity, I mean it needs tangible warranted evidence that is provable as real and not some empty made up definition that is not real.

Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology OEA (The Hammer of Truth)

OEA “Hammer of Truth” Questions:

Ontology, Epistemology, & Axiology questioning tools in inquiry, disagreements, arguments, or debates.

*Ontology (thingness of things) questions to define or compare and contrast thingness.

*Epistemology (knowledge of things) questions to explode or establish and confirm knowledge.

*Axiology (value/worth/goodness of things) questions to valueize (value judge) or establish and confirm value or disvalue, worth or dis-worth, as well as goodness or un-good.

To understand my “Hammer of Truth” Ontology, Epistemology and Axiology questions debate/challenge philosophy tools gatherers: “Ontology”, inquisitors: “Epistemology”, & judgers: “Axiology.”